In Scherba v. Scherba, Appellate Case No. 2023-000949 (S.C. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2026), the South Carolina Court of Appeals delivered a significant opinion on the limits of alimony—particularly in cases involving a highly educated but underemployed spouse. The court reversed a family court’s award of permanent periodic alimony to Wife, emphasizing that earning capacity and demonstrated need—not lifestyle preference—drive alimony determinations in South Carolina.

The parties were married for more than twenty years and maintained what the court described as a modest, middle-class lifestyle. They lived within their means, carried little debt, and focused on saving and investing rather than spending. Husband worked in the technology sector, most recently for Google, while Wife, a licensed attorney and military officer, left active duty in 2014 to focus on raising the parties’ children. By the time of litigation, Wife remained in the Air Force Reserves, earning approximately $77,000 annually, later adjusted by the family court to about $85,960 based on her promotion.

Despite these circumstances, the family court awarded Wife $1,500 per month in permanent periodic alimony. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed that award, focusing on the fundamental principles governing alimony: need, earning capacity, and the goal of self-sufficiency.

A central theme in the court’s analysis was that alimony is not intended to elevate a spouse’s standard of living beyond what existed during the marriage. Rather, it is meant to approximate the marital lifestyle as closely as practicable. Here, the evidence showed the parties lived conservatively, yet Wife’s claimed expenses were found to be overstated. Even after the family court reduced her monthly expenses to just over $8,000, the appellate court concluded that the alimony award—when combined with other financial resources—would effectively improve Wife’s standard of living beyond what she enjoyed during the marriage. South Carolina precedent makes clear that such an outcome is improper.

Equally important was the court’s focus on Wife’s earning capacity. While the family court declined to fully impute additional income to Wife, the Court of Appeals found that approach insufficient in light of the evidence. Wife was not only a licensed attorney but also a high-ranking military officer with substantial experience and credentials. Yet, she worked only a limited number of weeks per year in her reserve role and made minimal efforts to obtain additional employment. The record showed she applied for only two jobs during the pendency of the case, both outside her professional field, and did not meaningfully explore opportunities in law, federal service, or even geographic areas where she was already licensed to practice.

The court was particularly troubled by the lack of a good-faith effort to become fully employed. Wife acknowledged she had not pursued admission to the South Carolina Bar, had not seriously investigated legal employment in Georgia where she had reciprocity, and had not sought full-time federal or civilian roles until late in the litigation—and only after being prompted by Husband’s vocational expert. The court found that these omissions, combined with her flexible schedule and professional qualifications, demonstrated that she was underemployed by choice rather than circumstance.

This conclusion aligned with longstanding South Carolina law permitting courts to consider earning capacity rather than actual income when a spouse is not working to his or her potential. The Court of Appeals credited evidence that Wife had the ability to significantly increase her income and noted that similarly situated reservists commonly maintain full-time civilian employment. In this context, the court determined that Wife’s limited income did not reflect her true financial capability.

The court also emphasized that alimony should not function as a disincentive to self-sufficiency. Wife’s testimony suggested she had structured her lifestyle around minimal employment supplemented by support payments, and the court viewed this as inconsistent with the purpose of alimony. Rather than encouraging independence, the award risked reinforcing a status quo in which Wife had little incentive to maximize her earning potential.

Another important consideration was the parties’ equitable distribution. The marital estate exceeded $1.7 million, with each party receiving more than $800,000 in assets. Wife also retained her military pension and other non-marital property. The court found that this substantial distribution further reduced any demonstrated need for ongoing support. In South Carolina, alimony must be considered in conjunction with the overall financial circumstances of the parties, and here those circumstances weighed heavily against an award.

Taken together, these factors led the Court of Appeals to conclude that Wife was not entitled to alimony. Her expenses were overstated, her earning capacity was significantly higher than her reported income, and she had not made a meaningful effort to become self-supporting. Moreover, the alimony award would have provided her with a standard of living exceeding that of the marriage, contrary to established law.

The decision in Scherba offers a clear and practical lesson for family law practitioners. Courts will closely scrutinize not only a spouse’s financial declarations but also their efforts—or lack thereof—to secure appropriate employment. Where a spouse has the education, experience, and opportunity to earn more but fails to pursue those opportunities, the court may impute income or deny alimony altogether. At the same time, the case reinforces that equitable distribution plays a critical role in assessing need and that alimony is not intended as a mechanism for financial enhancement.

Ultimately, Scherba v. Scherba underscores a consistent principle in South Carolina family law: alimony is grounded in fairness, need, and realistic earning potential. When those elements are not present—particularly in the face of clear underemployment—an award of alimony will not stand.